FLM 

2015 

021044 






















































































































































• t 




* 

























* 



































* 












■f 























0 



























\ 


t 





































































































































* 



































* • 

■ 






























. 


. 


















* 

























NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 


n 

HON. A. P. 

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 

FEBRUARY 24 and 25, 1854, 


P E E C H 


OF 



The Senate having under consideration the bill 
to organize the Territories ot' Nebraska and Kan¬ 
sas— 

Mr. BUTLER said: 

Mr. President: At one time I had determined 
to take no part in this debate; but I have received 
letters from my own State, and I have heard opin¬ 
ions expressed here in connexion with this sub¬ 
ject—one of acknowledged magnitude, and which 
affects deeply the interests of the section of the 
Union which I in part represent—which have in¬ 
duced me to depart from the resolution which I 
originally formed, and to ask the Senate to hear 
me for a sho. t time upon som** of the many interest¬ 
ing topics which are involved in the question be¬ 
fore the Senate. 

The state of my voice is such that I may not be 
able to speak with articulate clearness ; but I will 
say one thing before I go further, that if I had the 
tongue of Juvenal. I would not use it as a rasp to 
exasperate sectional differences ; I certainly would 
not use itto irritate, or in any mannerto wound the 
feelings of those from the north, who in good faith 
are inclined to do the south justice. But. sir, the 
honorable senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Sum¬ 
ner.) the honorable senator from New York, (Mr. 
Seward,) and the honorable senators from Ohio. 
-(Messrs. Chase and Wise.) have said some hard 
things. They have uttered language which might 
well call from me that of retaliation and hostility. 
Sir, I shall not, however, draw from my quiver any 
poisoned arrows; and if I give them aim, they 
will only strike where, I think, they should strike. 
For the honorable senator from Massachusetts, 
who sits near me, as a neighbor, as a gentleman 
of classic taste, as one with whom I frequently 
converse upon subjects of that kind, I have a re¬ 
spect which such attainments may well inspire. 
It has always given me pain when I have seen 
him, under the influence of feelings rather than of 
principles, ’(I do not allude to principles in a moral 
point of view, but to those principles which should 
guide a statesman,) rising and speaking in the 
style and temper in which he spoke the other day. 
j I must be permitted to say. that, whilst I award to 
him the merit of having spoken with the taste and 
fervor arid eloquence of an accomplished orator, 
he has not, in my deliberate judgment, spoken with 


the wisdom, the judgment, and the responsibility 
of a statesman. If it be any consolation to that 
gentleman, I am willing that, if he shall win the 
reputation of Wrlberforce himself, he cannot claim 
a place in history that is due to the statesmen of 
sagacity and purpose; lor, notwithstanding the 
results to which Wilberforce's doctrines have led, 
no historian will ever award to him the place of 
one who was capable of conducting human affairs 
with judgment and responsibility—with that judg¬ 
ment which can rule and save society. The 
plunging agitator and rhetorical advocate may 
play his part on the stage, and win the plaudits of* 
an ex parte constituency, but he cannot have be¬ 
stowed on him the honors due to the sage and the 
patriot. 

Before I notice in detail some of the topics 
which have fallen from the honorable gentleman 
to whom I have alluded—and I intend to do it in 
no unkind spirit personally—I will take the liberty 
of laying down the propositions which I intend, 
as far as I can, to maintain. 

In the first place, I will undertake to maintain 
that the Missouri compromise, notwithstanding 
the laudations of the honorable senator from 
Texas, [Mr. Houston,] instead of bringing with 
it peace and harmony, has brought with it sec¬ 
tional strife; that it is, instead of being a healing 
salve, a thorn in the side of the southern portion 
of this confederacy, and the sooner you extract 
it, the sooner you will restore harmony and health 
to the body politic. 

I will undertake to maintain, in the second 
place, that whilst the Missouri compromise, if 
properly observed, would, perhaps, have been as 
advantageous to the south as even the provisions 
of this bill, still that, as it obligations have been 
disregarded, atul its intended benefits .to the south 
denied on all occasions where its true principles 
could be applied, it has nothing in it to give it 
either respect or authority, and that the sooner 
its punic operation can be discarded from the ad¬ 
ministration of the government, the better if will 
be for all parties. 

In the third place, I will endeavor to show, if it 
has not been shown by my eloquent and honora¬ 
ble friend from Virginia, [Mr. Hunter,] who has 
I just taken his seat, that the Missouri compromise 












V 


3 


0 $ 


•was never passed by constitutional competency, 
but that its only authority has been derived from 
the lapse of time, and the voluntary acquiescence 
of ourselves and forefathers in a sincere disposi¬ 
tion to make any sacrifice to preserve this once 
glorious confederacy. One source of acquies¬ 
cence has been too generous a confidence in the 
honor of compromise. We have never acknow¬ 
ledged any constitutional obligations in the Mis¬ 
souri compromise. 

I will endeavor to show, in the fourth place, 
that whilst I have some objections to the bill un¬ 
der consideration, I shall give it my support, on 
the ground that its intendments are good, and that 
its provisions approximate at least that spirit of 
justice and equality contained in the federal Con¬ 
stitution, and that it professes a return to those 
maxims of policy which our forefathers acted on 
in regarding all the States alike in a political point 
of view. It will, if adopted, obliterate a line of 
geographical distinction, indicating, for the first 
time, that the federal States, by this line, had ad¬ 
verse as well as separate interests. 

It may be supposed, from the number of points 
which I have indicated, that I may take some lime 
in discussing them; and perhaps I ought not to 
limit myself, considering their magnitude, but I 
shall take as little time as possible. 

Before arguing the points which I have laid 
down, allow me to make some preliminary obser¬ 
vations in reference to some topics which have 
been discussed by honorable senators who have 
taken grounds against the provisions of this bill. 

I might begin by adopting the remark quoted by 
the honorable senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Summer:] 

“Oh, Liberty! -what crimes have been committed in thy 
name!” 

The blood that lay in pools around the posts of 
the guillotine would make a historical response; 
but there may have been, with the French people, 
some excuse, at least, for their excesses. If. how¬ 
ever, the efforts of fanatical organization shall 
result, as that honorable senator has indicated they 
must result, in breaking down the distinction be- 
tweeen the black and the white man, and elevat¬ 
ing one, or degrading the other to an equality, the 
horrors of the French revolution, in all their frantic 
ferocity and cruelty, will be nothing compared to 
the consequences which must flow from such a 
state of things. None but an incendiary can look 
upon the picture but with horror. The effort to 
confound castes between whom God has made an 
indelible distinction would but result in the de¬ 
struction of one, or the base degradation of the 
higher class. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and 
criminal to deal with such elements in the spirit 
which has manifested itself in the speeches of the 
gentleman to whom I have referred. 

Liberty! Sir, liberty is like fire, which maybe 
used either to warm and preserve the temple in 
which it is kindled, or to be the means of its de¬ 
struction. It may he an object of worship, or il 
may be a means of destruction. They who hold 
their hands in solemn worship at the fires of 
Vesta, occupy a very different place from those 
who would light firebrands upo-> her altar to illu¬ 
minate the temple in which they have none of the 
rights of priesthood, nor the spirit of worshippers. 
They are profane intruders, who cannot perceive 
the difference between dangerous heat and pure 
light—such as are willing to fire the edifice, in the 


belief that it might afford the light of delusive 
vation. 

There was another remark of the honoral 
senator from Massachusetts which struck me 
inappropriate. It was that in which he chose 
draw a contrast between the civilization of t 
south and that which must necessarily exist 
the northern States, where they have not the 1 
stitution of slavery. I shall not stop to answer 
now; but I will note the remark, and he shall he 
from me at the proper time. 

In this connexion I may say, that I shall have 
say many things, apparently, not connected with t 
precise question in view, by way of episode, if 
my own mind, I may make them referable to tin 
matter in hand, whilst others may not see their 3,s- \ 
socialion and connexion. 

There was a remark made by the senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Chase] which struck me with more as¬ 
tonishment than any. It was that this bill ought 
to be defeated, because the slaveholder with ris 
laborers, in the form of slaves, would pollute tlie 
soil upon which they settled, and might, by sudh 
settlement, exclude foreigners as well as citizens 
from the non-slaveholding States. I do not intend 
to answer that argument at any great length ; but 
I have often remarked that illustrations some¬ 
times present the best argument. General Greene 
was a northern man. He was transferred from 
the north at the instance of General Washington, 
a slaveholder, to take command of the southern 
troops ; for 1 believe there was but a single regi¬ 
ment from the north engaged with him in that 
celebrated campaign of 17bl,in South Carolina. 
Sir, he met under the banners of Cornwallis the 
Hessians—the sordid and mercenary Hessians, i 
who had been employed by Great Britain to make 
war upon her children. They were a o^ass of men 
who took pleasure in saying that they washed 
their muskets in the blood of the rebels. And yet, 
according to the notions of the honorable senator 
from Ohio, the descendants of those blood thirsty 
and sordid Hessians from abroad could claim the 
soil of these territories to the exclusion of the de¬ 
scendants of General Greene, who was not so far 
blinded by the bigotry which now prevails as to 
prevent him from coming and settling among us. 

He settled with us, and became a slaveholder him¬ 
self. Sir, let me stop here to pay a tribute to that 
general. It was said by an eloquent orator that 
there was scarcely a stream or a path in South 
Carolina which had not been stained with the 
blood of men contending under his banner for the 
liberties of the country, and for the independence 
of coequal States, without distinction of locality or 
peculiarity of i nstitutions—a northern general, from 
a non-slaveholding State, commanding an army of 
slaveholding officers. In that day the swords of 
Marion, Lee, Howard, and Morgan were used, un¬ 
der the command of Greene, to maintain the com¬ 
mon interest of ail the States united. At thaU - 
period southern generals commanded northern 
troops; and let the battles of Princeton and Sara-, 
ga suggest their names, whilst northern gener¬ 
als commanded southern troops, and let Eutaw 
and Charleston suggest their names. The men of 
that day, that governed senates and commanded 
armies, never thought of the distinctions now 
made by their more sublime and exclusive descen¬ 
dants. 

I will take another case to test the gentleman’s 
remark. It has become extremely popular to be¬ 
stow praises upon my gallant countryman, Captain 
Ingraham. Sir, he deserves them. He is a slave- 

















3 


/ 


holder; I know him well. He is a constituent ol 
mine.and I respect him, not alone as a brave man 
and heroic, officer, but as a just man and responsi¬ 
ble citizen. Because he is my countryman and 
constituent, I do not claim any superiority for him 
in the spirit of popular enthusiasm which his gal¬ 
lant conduct has excited. 

1 will not use his name to draw' contrasts. No 
one would rebuke me sooner for making such a 
use of it. 1 shall let history write her verdict. 

1 According to the honorable gentleman fronv 
Ohio, if Captain Ingraham were to take Martin 
Koszta to-morrow with him to Nebraska, Koszta 
would become the superior, and drive off Ingra¬ 
ham, who had rescued him from the fetters of 
European bondage. “ Can such things bo ?” Why, 
sir, the slaveholder, with his slaves well governed, 
forms a relation that is innocent enough, and use¬ 
ful enough. I believe that it is a population which 
Iowa to-morrow would prefer to an inundation of 
I those men coming as emigrants from a foreign 
/ country, wholly unacquainted with the institu¬ 
tions of this country ; and nearly all continental 
comers are of that class. The same remark can¬ 
not be made of those who, like the Irish and 
English, have lived under the administration of 
the common law. 

I am told, however, Mr. President, by another 
senator from Ohio, [M. Wade.] who, it seems to 
me, has taken very contradictory positions, as have 
the other gentlemen who have sustained him, that 
the black man, under the sentimental idea con¬ 
tained in the Declaration of Independence, has a 
right to claim an equality with the white man ; and 
I think that honorable senator said, that, but lor 
his degradation by the master, he w 7 ould elevate 
himself to that equality. According to the argu¬ 
ment of these gentlemen, atone moment he is the 
equal of the master, and entitled to claim the fran¬ 
chises of a civilized freeman, but the next mo¬ 
ment he is so degraded that he pollutes the very 
soil on which he stands, making it offensive to the 
white man to be even in his territorial neighbor¬ 
hood. The gentleman said, however, notwith¬ 
standing all this, he guessed there would no differ¬ 
ence in the races in the sight of God. 

Sir, I will not invade the province of God. I 
will not undertake to say in what point of view 
the white and the black man may be regarded at 
the bar of His tribunal. I should regard it as pro¬ 
fanity in me to do so. Why, sir, if the purest mo¬ 
ment of the purest being that ever lived on this 
earth were protracted into eternity, it might be a 
very inadequate conception of that happiness for 
which God may prepare the humblest and mean¬ 
est human being on earth. I do not, therefore, 
undertake to say what, before the Almighty eye. is 
the relative condition of the black man and the 
white man. Inequality pervades the creation of 
■ this universe. Yes, sir, with a chain of subordi- 
' uatf* links and gradation, ali existence upon this 
earth is connected together, from the lowest worm 
than crawls upon the earth, to the purest angel j 
that burns before the altar of God. Inequality 
seems to characterize the administration of the 
Providence of God. I will not undertake to invade 
that sanctuary, but I will say that the abolitionists 
cannot make those equal whom God has made un¬ 
equal, in human estimation. That he has made 
the blacks unequal to the whites, human history, 
as far as it can take cognizance of the matter, has 
pronounced its uniform judgment. Thejudgment 
of the earth, and the history of mankind, are alone 
the records which I presume to read. They lead 


! to but one judgment—revealing, perhaps, to us a 
I melancholy truth. 

Now, sir, what is the truth in relation to this 
matter? I am perleclly willing that the blindest 
fanatic should hear me in regard to it. I should be 
perfectly willing that even Garrison should hear 
me. He sends me his paper, and I sometimes 
read it as a mere matter of curiosity. I am per¬ 
fectly willing that the blindest fanatic upon earth 
should hear me upon this subject. Is the black 
man equal with the white man under human judg¬ 
ment? All history refutes it. Who ever heard of 
the African astronomer, statesman,general, poet? 
Who ever heard of the African soaring in those 
regions in which the Caucasian race have made 
their greatest developments? All history refutes 
the idea. Why, sir, Miriam even regarded it as a 
reproach to her brother Moses that he married an 
Ethiopian. The Ethiopians then—and they were 
not Africans—were regarded as so far inferior, 
that a matrimonial alliance between the greatest 
of law-givers upon the earth with one of them was 
regarded as a reproach. Is it not perfectly true, 
so far as regards the statutory provisions of the 
federal and State legislation, that the black man 
has never been, and never can be, equal with the 
white man ? In your naturalization laws, it is pro¬ 
vided that none but a white man shall be a citizen 
of the United Slates. Under your militia laws, 
none but a white man can take a musket in the 
service of the country, or be enrolled among the 
militia. It is notorious that those very gentlemen, 
who bestow so much tongue-expressed philanthro¬ 
py upon the black man, do not themselves regard 
him as an equal, and they cannot so regard him. 

I might present a case—and I hope it is not an un¬ 
allowable transition from the graver views of the 
subject—to illustrate the idea that I have pre¬ 
sented. 

The honorable senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] 
said that the black man was not equal to the 
white man because he had been degraded. I will 
have so much respect for the feelings of that sen¬ 
ator as not to ask whether he would consent that 
one of that raceshould occupy a domestic relation 
towards him. I will not ask such a question, be¬ 
cause it is a thing that is repulsive; but 1 will 
take a fancy picture. Let me suppose the case 
of a young man who never saw one of this race, 
and who might therefore be regarded as having 
no prejudice whatever. Take the case of a young 
gentleman of romantic disposition, of high imagi¬ 
nation, with all the gifts that could be bestowed 
upon him by nature. Suppose it were proposed 
to him that, if he would consent, he could marry 
an empress or a princess whose dowry was is¬ 
lands and provinces, who was possessed of the 
archipelago of the south. Now, sir, just imagine 
that young gentleman to have such a proposition 
brought to him. [Laughter.] The negotiation 
commences. The lady is to be introduced to him 
in a palace, highly decorated and prepared for 
such an occasion. Bemember, this young man 
never saw a black woman before, and therefore 
he has no prejudice at all. She may have ob¬ 
served all the rules of Marie Antoinette when she 
passed the confines of France. She may adopt 
her dress. She may have her ankles covered 
with pearls, aud her fingers with rings of rubies 
and diamonds. The young gentleman is standing 
near the altar of Hymen- of course with n palpita¬ 
ting heart. His betrothed is led out to him. He 
sees her white teeth; but lo! she has a black skin 
and kinky hair. [Laughter.] Now, what do you 






-West 


. Eroe. Btotw S° c 









suppose that youth would say? Will the gentle-, 
man from Massachusetts allow me to borrow one j 
of his quotations, and say, that if he could speak 
Latin, he would instantly exclaim : “ Monstrum /lot- \ 
rendum , ivforme, citi lumen ademptum /” [Laugh- \ 
ter.] Pic would certainly insist that she was lu -1 
men ademptum , that the light of the sun had never 
shown upon her; and I have no doubt he would | 
regard her as the daughter of Nox. But sir, I 
■rather think he would not have stopped to talk ! 
Latin at all; and he would not have required an 
engineer to show him the straightest way out of! 
that palace. [Laughter.] If he would have said J 
anything at all. it would have been something like I 
Rip Van Winkle’s soliloquy, when he found that [ 
he and his dog Wolf found no favor with his sour 
spouse; while suffering under the scorching tire | 
of her tongue, Rip said: ‘'there are two sides to | 
the house, and 1 think the outside is the best for 
me.” 

Equality! Equality! I should like to see a play 
written on this matter. I have no doubt that the 
honorable senator from Massachusetts, with his ! 
taste and talent, could draw up one describing the . 
scene which I have mentioned. He could depict | 
the negro princess in search of a husband, and ’ 
could lake this scene as a practical illustration of 
its results! 

I have treated these things thus far with some 
kittle ridicule, but with fairness, I hope; and now, 
sir, I approach the discussion of the questions 
which I propose to debate. 

Mr. President, I always hang my head down in \ 
sorrow when I think of the honorable and gene- 
.rous confidence which was reposed in the north 
when the Missouri compromise was agreed to. It 
was said by the senator from Texas [Mr. Hous¬ 
ton] that it has brought with it peace and har¬ 
mony. Sir, I say it has brought with it the very 
reverse. It was the commencement, in my delib¬ 
erate judgment, of the sectional strife which has 
ensued from it. What, sir, the Missouri compro-1 
mise bring peace! It established a distinction odi- J 
ous to one section of this Union, which was die-1 
tated by the other; and yet such a provision is to 
bring peace and harmony. I do not know by 
what standard the gentleman from Texas chooses 
to judge of what would or ought to bring peace. 
No. sir; instead of Peace standing upon the Mis¬ 
souri line, with healing in her wings and olive 
branches in her hands, it has been Electra, with 
snakes hissing from her head, and the torch of 
discord in her hand, presiding over it. Sir, I do 
not believe that we should have had the present 
array of sectional interests but for that—I had al¬ 
most said accursed Missouri compromise line. It 
was a fatal error; it was worse than a fatal error, 
made by our ancestors. By way of introducing 
my remarks upon it, I will ask my friend from 
Arkansas, who sits before me, to read an extract 
which I have placed in his hand. 

Mr. Sebastian read, as follows: 

“Tire hacks, bankrupt law. manufactures, Spanish treaty, 
are nothing. These are occurrences which, like waves in 
a storm, will pass under the ship. But the Missouri ques¬ 
tion is a breaker, on which we lose the Missouri country 
by revolt, and what more, God only knows.” 

Mr. BUTLER. Those were the words of Mr. 
Jefferson, quoted by Mr. Calhoun. Now, will my 
friend be kind enough to read further. 

Mr. Sebastian read the following: 

“Mark (sakl Mr. Calhoun) Mr. Jefferson’s prophetic 
words. Mark his profound reasoning: 


“ ‘It (the question) is hushed for the moment. But this 
is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical 
line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political., 
once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, 
will never be obliterated, and every new irritation wiN 
mark it deeper and deeper.’” 

Mr. BUTLER. I ask my friend to read now 
the imposing remarks of my late venerable col¬ 
league, Mr. Calhoun, in relation to this matter; 
and upon these texts 1 intend to make my speech. 

Mr. Sebastian read the following extract: 

“ I have, senators, believed from the first that the agita¬ 
tion of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented bj 
some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. En¬ 
tertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, en¬ 
deavored to call the attention of each of the two great par¬ 
ties which divide the country to adopt some measure to 
prevent so great a disaster, but without success. Theogi- 
tation has been permitted to proceed with almost no at¬ 
tempt to resist it, until it has reached a period when it 
can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is ia 
danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest 
and the gravest question that can ever come under your , 
consideration. How can the Union be preserved?” 

Mr. BUTLER. That, sir, is the imposing in¬ 
terrogatory which I propose—how can this Union 
be preserved ? By requiring all to observe the 
obligations of good faith; by dispensing with those 
temporary expedients, and by doing justice one 
to another. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them.” 

The temper and judgment of the public mind 
underwent a great change after the adoption of the 
compromise. The press and statutes will verify 
this. 

Now, sir, I shall quote a statute, with no pur¬ 
pose, let me inform the distinguished senator from 
Massachusetts on the other side of the Chamber, 
[Mr. Everett.] to assail Massachusetts or her 
legislation, but as a commentary upon the State ol 
public opinion before and after the Missouri com¬ 
promise. My object is to show, that, from the time 
the Missouri compromise was first introduced here 
as a topic of discussion, agitation has gone on; and 
it is under the influence of dicussions which then 
took place, and not before, that we find one section 
in hostile array against the other. I make this 
statement broadly, and I challenge denial: that the 
Missouri compromise, in making a geographical 
line, made one of odious distinction and sectional 
alienation. 

The honorable senator from Massachusets [Mr. 
Sumner] said that southern statesmen, distin¬ 
guished men from Virginia, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Georgia, at one time were free to 
give their opinions upon this subject, and they 
were generally against the institution of slavery. 
He is entirely true. I can remember the time 
when it was regarded, even in South Carolina, as 
a moral evil; but, sir, from the time when north, 
or a portion of the north, undertook to make an 
issue upon the subject, you have never heard a 
single southern man, of any reputation, on this floor 
or anywhere else, undertake to give up that ques¬ 
tion. I have said that before tiie adoption of the 
Missouri compromise even the northern States 
were not so very kind and philanthropic towards 
this race, which is now under the peculiar care of 
the senator from Massachusetts, as he would re¬ 
present. I have before me a statute of that State, 
which I ask my friend from Alabama, who sits be¬ 
side me, to read. 

Mr. Clay read it, as follows : 














‘•Sec. 6. Beit further enacted by the authority aforesaid, 
that no person, being an African or negro, other than a 
a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some 
one of the United States, (to be evidenced by a certificate 
from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citi¬ 
zen,) shall tarry within this Commonwealth for a longer 
time than two months; and, upon complaint made to any 
justice of the peace within this Commonwealth, that any 
such person has been within the same more than tw r o 
months, the said justice shall order the said person to de¬ 
part out of this Commonwealth ; and in ease that the said 
African or negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any justice 
of the peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint 
and proof made that such person has continued within this 
Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to 
depart as aforesaid, shall commit the said person to any 
house of correction within the county, there to be kept to 
hard labor, agreeably to the rules and orders of the said 
house, until the sessions of the peace next to be holden 
within and for the said county; and the master of the 
house of correction is hereby required and directed to trans¬ 
mit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the 
said court on the first day of their said session; and if, up¬ 
on trial at the said court, it shall be made to appear that 
the said person has thus continued within the Common¬ 
wealth contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall 
be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to de¬ 
part out of this Commonwealth within ten days; and if he 
or she shall not so depart, the same process shall be had 
and punishment inflicted, and so taties quolies.” (.March 
116, 1788.) Add. acts, 1797, chapter 62; 1802, chapter 22. 

Mr. BRODHEAD. What is the dale of that 
statute ? 

Mr. BUTLER. Seventeen hundred and eighty- 
eight; and it remained on the statute-book in full 
force until 1823; until after the adoption of the 
Missouri compromise. I will call it the toties quo- 
ties act. [Laughter.] The negroes were to be 
whipped every time they happened to get to Bos¬ 
ton, or any other place in Massachusetts. That is 
a specimen of statutory philanthropy at least. I 
do not quote it to reproach Massachusetts, for it 
has become a common principle of legislation in 
many of the non-slaveholding States. The truth 
is, that a black population was regarded by Mas¬ 
sachusetts as a nuisance. 

Mr. SUMNER and Mr. EVERETT both rose. 

Mr. SUMNER. The senator from South Caro¬ 
lina is so jealous of the honor of his own State, 
that he will pardon me if I interrupt him for one 
moment, merely to explain the offensive statute 
to which he has referred. I have nothing to say 
in vindication of it ; I simply desire that it should 
be understood. This statute, which bears date 
1788, anterior to the federal government, was ap¬ 
plicable only to Africans or negroes not citizens 
of some one of the United States; and, according 
to cotemporary evidence, it was intended to pro¬ 
tect the Commonwealth against the vagabondage 
of fugitive slaves. But I do not vindicate the 
statute ; I only explain it ; and I add, that it has 
long since been banished from the statute-book. 

Mr. BUTLER. I say that the Missouri com-! 
promise produced this ; and to prove it, I refer to 
the fact that this toties qvoties act was repealed 
almost immediately after the adoption of the Mis¬ 
souri compromise. Take it as the gentleman 
would have us construe it, and what is it? He 
says it was passed to prevent fugitive slaves going 
there. I suppose, therefore, that since they have 
repealed it. it was to let the fugitive slaves go to 
Boston, and that has become a common ground for 
runaways. The gentleman cannot escape the di¬ 
lemma—that before its repeal, fugitive negroes 
were banished, and that after its repeal, under the j 
sentiment of the Missouri compromise, they were ! 
invited to come to Massachusetts. 

Sir, the fact is, that my habitual reverence for j 
Massachusetts as a historical entity is very great; it 


but I believe she is no better than any other Com¬ 
monwealth—not a whit. I think there are other 
Commonwealths besides her; but I respect her 
for her real history, when hardy morality, when 
wisdom, when brave justice, instead of sickly sen¬ 
timentality, governed her counsels, and made her 
a commonwealth; when her great men were sen¬ 
ators of Rome, when Rome survived. 

The historian has written another thing of Mas¬ 
sachusetts. I have forgotten the book in which it 
is written, but I can produce it if need be. I re¬ 
fer to it only to show how negroes were once re¬ 
garded there, not to show how the gentleman 
regards them now ; because it seems to me that IT 
he wished to write poetry, he would get a negro 
to sit for him. [Laughter.] Sir, it is just as noto¬ 
rious as that I am stating it, and a historian has 
gravely said so, that at the time of the passage of 
the law in Massachusetts abolishing slavery, pret¬ 
ty nearly all the grown negroes disappeared some¬ 
where ; and, os the historian expresses it. the 
little negroes who were left there, without father 
or mother, and with hardly a God, were sent about 
as puppies, to be taken by those who would feed 
them. That is in the book. If any gentleman 
wishes it, 1 can find the book ; it is in the library. 
This is the truth ; and I suppose nobody can corn- 
plain of me for speaking the truth. Grown and 
working slaves disappeared in Massachusetts 
with slavery; but it is too true—not to be free¬ 
men, but slaves of southern owners, with their 
proceeds in northern pockets. Yes, sir, we are 
taking care of the descendants of those who were 
committed to bondage when they could have been 
frqe. 

This was all before the Missouri compromise j 
and now, what has been the state of feeling since 
that compromise has been adopted? This is a 
grave interrogatory. Has there been a single oc¬ 
casion since, when an assault could be made on 
the south, when some one has not made it? I do:' 
not know whether I am at liberty to use Mr. Web¬ 
ster's name in regard to this matter; for the state¬ 
ment of bis which I wish to use was in conversa¬ 
tion. But Mr. Webster always took the ground 
that, so far as the connexion of slavery with eivil- 
izalion was concerned, or so far as concerned its 
mere moral influence, the objections which had 
been made to it were merely nominal; but hedid, 
as a northern statesman, say that he was not dis¬ 
posed to let the slave power, the cotton aristocra¬ 
cy, as Mr. John Davis once called it, have the as¬ 
cendency in the government of the United States; 
but he said he had no such sickly sentimentality 
to talk about their equality and all that. lie never 
thought of such a thing. A philosophical mind 
can be imbued with sentiment, as an element of 
wisdom and reason ; justice and judgment maybe 
influenced, but ought not to be controlled by it as 
a monarchy; give the other powers of the mind 
some of the rights of a republic. 

Since its adoption, the Missouri line has been 
that in which have been drilled the seeds of agi¬ 
tation, and they have brought forth the fruits of 
bitterness, of strife, and contention. Yet, the 
honorable senator from Texas says to us, “hug 
the Missouri compromise, for it brought peace and 
harmony to the country.’’ He and I differ very 
widely upon that subject. ft has brought no 
peace. It has operated as a deceptive opiate, to 
induce sleep and temporary repose, but not peace 
and cordial concord. It is a line, over which 
bands were joined, with snares by one to bind 
the other. 


















6 


Here, in approaching the next proposition which 
I intended to discuss, I may say that the Missouri 
controversy gave rise to a discussion which for 
the first time opened to the north the certainty 
that it had power to interfere with slavery. Until 
then it never did interfere upon this floor as an 
antagonistic power; but when it found that it had 
the power, it did interfere, has interfered, and will 
continue to interfere with the institution, unless 
statesmen and patriots shall come forward to ar-1 
rest the billows of criminal agitation. 

Now, sir, what took place upon that Missouri j 
controversy ? I suppose that a love of the Union, i 
and a disposition to make any sacrifice to preserve ! 
it, and all the considerations which could control 
the decision of high patriots and wise statesmen, 
were agencies then adduced in its support, which 
I cannot now appreciate. And when 1 think of 
it, it does seem to me that our forefathers then 
did not maintain the true principle which actu¬ 
ated their fathers in running every hazard—even 
the hazard of disunion, in order to maintain equal 
rights. The Union, giving power to a majority, 
may have become stronger; it may have acquired 
elements of arbitrary strength ; but it may be a 
Union that will survive the Constitution. I dread 
nothing so much as an arbitrary change, under 
the mere forms of law, and the sanction of dele¬ 
gates, at too great a distance from their constitu¬ 
ents. The proposition was, that Missouri should 
come into the Union upon condition that she 
should not allow slaveholders to settle within her 
borders. It was carried in the other House with 
a unanimity and rancor of feeling which was for 
the first time exhibited on this subject; but it 
was carried, and the south was driven to the alter¬ 
native of allowing this fatal line of 36° 30', this 
line of diseord, to be adopted. As Mr. Jefferson 
said, it was the most fatal error that ever had 
been committed in the legislation of the country. 

After this so called compromise, when Missouri 
came back for admission, she came through the 
gates of the Constitution, and asked to be admit¬ 
ted as one of the States of this Union; and her 
admission was then objected to, upon the ground 
that she would not allow free negroes within her 
borders. Mr. Clay, with a great deal of address, 
drew up the celebrated provision, that she should 
come in, if she would pass a law declaring that 
she would not violate the Constitution of the 
United Slates. That was the humbug which went 
out; and I suppose reconciled both sides to let it 
go in that way. 

There was another cause which, 1 have heard 
from high authority, operated on the north, which 
induced them to forbear and to withdraw some of 
their resistance to the admission of Missouri. 1 
heard it from Mr. Calhoun, and 1 think 1 heard it 
from others. What was it? Missouri had formed 
her constitution, and was an organized sovereign 
State. She was either in the Union or out of the 
Union. From the feelings prevading the people 
upon the Mississippi at that time, from its mouth 
almost to its source, with the feelings expressed 
by General Jackson; who said that he was ready 
to draw his sword wiih the people of Missouri 
rather than submit to insult and degradation. I 
have hearu it said that Missouri might have been 
a nucleus to form a new confederacy, one of the 
most formidable which could have been formed 
from the limits of the United States. Louisiana, 
and that portion which has since become Arkan¬ 
sas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, 
Illinois, Indiana, even Iowa, and perhaps, Wiscon¬ 


sin, would have formed that confederacy, with 
the greatest highway upon earth running through 
them, The Mississippi is a highway which runs 
through every variety of climate, and fertilizes 
every description of soil which is to be found upon 
the face of the earth, from the sugar-producing 
region of the south to the hemp and wheat-grow¬ 
ing region of the north. All the great productions 
—cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco, and wheat—are pro¬ 
duced upon the banks of that river. The sugges¬ 
tion to make those States one confederacy was 
not a wild one. If Missouri had continued out of 
the Union, she would have remained out as a 
sovereign, not as a rebel; for she had been au¬ 
thorized to form a constitution, and if she and the 
other States had formed such a confederacy as 
that, the eastern States would have realized what 
has been said by some one. that there is nothing 
so caustic as the ashes of disappointed ambition. 
The accomplishment of such a project w'ould 
have been the death-knell of this confederacy. 
The south and the west, under a policy of free 
trade, would have formed such connexions as 
would have isolated the sentimental north from 
the remainder of the country. 

The senator from Texas.(Mr. Houston,) I think, 
used the expression that the north and east could 
have been reconciled if they had been given a mo- 
I nopoly of the slave trade. I do not know bow that 
is. But the idea which I have suggested was one 
of the concurring and co-operatingeauses in bring¬ 
ing Missouri into the Union. The north preferred 
to allow Missouri to come into the Union, rather 
than run some of these hazards. If I had been 
upon this floor then, I do know that, acting up¬ 
on the responsibility of a southern representa¬ 
tive, 1 would not have gone with my distinguished 
countryman, Mr. Lowndes, and others; but with 
my present convictions of duty, and with the dis¬ 
closures now before me, I could not have done so. 
What I might have adopted then, in the hope of 
peace and equality, 1 cannot now ratify with the 
lights of experience shining on my way. 

My friend from Virginia (Mr. H unter) and my 
friend from North Carolina (Mr. Badger) have put 
this question in such a lucid light, that 1 need not 
worry the Senate by dealing with this matter fur¬ 
ther. I shall go now to tli e fact that the Missouri 
compromise, if it were adopted in good faith, did 
impose upon both sections of the Union obligations 
which have been disregarded by one and faithfully 
observed by the other. 

Sir. what were the obligations growing out of 
the adoption of the Mi ssouri compromise line ? I 
would leave it to those gentlemen themselves, if 
they are disposed to consult the truth of history. 
When the Missouri compromise line was adopted, 
was it not with the understanding that, whilst 
slavery was to be prohibited north of the line of 
30° 30'. southern institutions should not be invaded 
south of that line? Has that obligation been ob¬ 
served? I pause to make this inquiry, which may 
be pregnant with suggestions. 

It will be recollected that, when the bill for the 
organization of the Territory of Oregon was before 
the House of Representatives, Mr. Burt, one of 
Mr. Calhoun's friends, offered a proposition, that 
inasmuch as that Territory lay north of the li'nc of 
30° 30', it should come in under the restriction of 
the Missouri compromise. The north, however, 
said they had the power, and they would not agree 
to any such thing, but they would run the line 
where they pleased, and they put the Wilmot pro¬ 
viso in that bill; and two senators from the south 



















7 


in this body voted for it. Was that observing the 
Missouri compromise in good faith? Was the 
'spirit of harmony, intended to be inculcated by its 
provisions, consulted, in this mere wanton and in¬ 
sulting declaration of sectional supremacy? 

The south wanted nothing but a legislative re¬ 
cognition of the Missouri line. The north chose 
to say that it gave no such reason for its conduct. 
It made the occasion one of cumulative insult. 

Sir, I attach a great deal of importance to the 
conduct and the resolution of States. Now, is it 
not notorious that when the southern troops were 
contending upon the common field of glory and 
honor, when they were moistening the sands of 
Mexico, and mingling their blood with the blood 
of the north, General Dix rose in this body, and 
made the insulting proposition to deprive us of 
any share in the territories ? At the very time 
when my kindred were battling for the interests of 
.41 common and an equal confederacy, he proposed 
in this body that, whenever the war terminated, we 
of the south should have nothing for our share but 
its honors, that we should not pollute, as it is said, 
the soil by carrying our slaves there to cultivate 
it. Was not that declaration authorized by the 
legislature of New York? J believe it was. I 
think a great many State* passed resolutions then 
who would be willing now to retrace their steps 
if they could ; but many of the northern States in¬ 
sisted that south of 36° 30' they would exclude 
slavery. Now. I would ask the honorable sen¬ 
ator from Ohio if that was not a violation of the 
Missouri compromise? 

Mr. CHASE. I think not. 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, the senator has a curious 
way of thin king, that is a!!. If that was not a vio¬ 
lation of the Missouri compromise, what was ? 
When we were insisting upon iis benefits they 
denied them to u*. We asked to have the line 
extended to the Pacific ocean, but it was refused. 
The gentleman will not deny that that proposition 
was voted down. It was voted down upon the 
broad ground then assumed, that they had got us 
to the line of 30° 30' and that they would go just 
as much farther as they could. The assertion 
w as made, and the power openly assumed, that 
Congress would use federal power to crush, as 
far as it could, the institutions of the south. 

Now. sir, suppose the north had succeeded in 
the very beginning in excluding slavery west of 
the Mississippi, and north of the line of 30° 30', 
and had confined it, as my friend from Virginia lias 
said, to the old States, they would have made them 
a unit; they would have made them more adver¬ 
sary; and allow me to say that, instead of benefit¬ 
ing the condition of the ‘‘poor slave,’’ they would 
have driven him into such a state of existence 
that it would have been a mercy to destroy hint, 
rather than have him crowded up, without the 
means of subsistence, where the white man could 
not support him. 

I may here remark, by way ot parenthesis, that 
I have no doubt that, whether you pass this bill 
or not, or no matter what bill you may pass in re¬ 
gard to the acquisition of new territory, Mr. Web¬ 
ster was right in saying that the laws of God will 
govern the question of the employment of slave 
labor; and, paradoxical as it may appear, it is true 
that every extension of slavery, especially to the 
south, lias weakened its existence. It is, after 
all, but a transfer. If you were to acquire to-mor¬ 
row all the West India Islands and South Ameri¬ 
ca, and it were found that a slave could make five 
times as much in the cultivation of the sugar, cpt- 


ton. and other products of that region as he could 
make in Virginia, I am rather inclined to think 
that the Boston merchants would buy up half the 
slaves and take them there. They would have 
no particular objection to buying them when they 
could make money by it. What would be the 
consequence? The slaves would be transferred 
from Virginia, and North, Carolina, and the upper 
part of South Carolina, and those laborers from 
the free S.ates, of whom the gentlemen talk so 
much., would take their places. 

This debate, and the tamper manifested in it, 
are violations of the Missouri compromise. 

Here allow me to notice one remark which was 
made by the senator from Massachusetts, which 
I think, even common prudence or common deli¬ 
cacy would have suggested to him that he ought 
not to have made, tie said that, wherever sla¬ 
very existed, it was followed by sterility, igno¬ 
rance. and the want of civilization, and that 
wherever it was it banished civilization. Well, 
sir, comparisons are invidious. In what are the 
south inferior to the north? In war, in peace, in 
the pulpit, in the academy, in all the departments 
of human knowledge—except, perpaps, some of 
the mechanical arts—and I acknowledge that the 
northerners are, perhaps, a little ahead of us in 
patent discoveries, &c.—in all the sphere of moral 
and intellectual dignity, I will not say that the 
south are superior to the north, but I will say that 
it struck me as singular that the gentleman in 
one breath should have remarked that civilization 
and education could not exist in the south, v hen, 
in the very next breath, be quoted the names of 
some of her great men—of Jefferson, of Madison, 
of Charles Ootesworlh Pinckney. Have they not 
added to the history of this confederacy? Sir, 
Christopher Gadsden and Samuel Adams, in the 
extreme parts of the Union, one in Boston, and 
the other in Charleston, were said to have been 
the Romans of the revolutionary struggle. They 
knew nothing of those sickly distinctions which 
gentlemen have erected now to make the south 
odious. 

The gentleman went further, and finished his 
speech by reading, undoubtedly with great beauty 
and effect, the dialogue between Brutus and Cas¬ 
sius. Perhaps he intended that he should be con¬ 
sidered as Brutus, and that I might be assigned 
the place of Cassius. 

Sir, these are remarks, which, in my opinion, 
the occasion did not call for. They are remarks 
which may have a/> influence in making one of 
those small tributaries which tend to form public 
opinion in one section of the Union. They may 
furnish materials for the thbatre. They may fur¬ 
nish some materials for the pulpit, for I am sorry 
to say—I am sorry to be compelled to say—in 
consulting the verdict of truth, that the Christian 
religion is sometimes disregarded in the pulpit. 
They may furnish materials for what 1 under land 
is a very popular novel—Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” 

I have no doubt they may do all this; but I put 
it to the gentleman, are his remarks true? They 
dealt some hard licks, but they are not true as 
Historical facts. Sir, I am not going to give a pre¬ 
ference to the civilization of the south. I have 
too much self-respect to do so ; but I say before 
the tribunal of history, that it is a civilization equal 
to any which ever existed on the face o( the globe. 

[At this point the honorable senator yielded to 
the request of senators who desired an executive 
session, and the further consideration of this bill 
was postponed until the follovting day.] 












8 


Saturday, February 25. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
same subject. 

Mr. BUTLER Mr. President, I shall resume 
my remarks this morning with some disadvantage, 
as, on account of the state of my voice, I cannot 
go on with the same clearness that 1 could do if it 
were not affected. Before I touch, however, upon 
the subject which I was discussing at the adjourn¬ 
ment of the Senate yesterday, I wish to make one 
explanation. 

Some of my friends have supposed that, in a ! 
playful remark which I made yesterday, I assimi¬ 
lated the Germans coming from Bremen and other 
ports of Germany to the black men, and regarded : 
them as equal. My intention was exactly the re-; 
verse. "What Id id say, what I intended to say,' 
and what, as a southern man, I will maintain, is, | 
that an intelligent and judicious master, having j 
his slaves around him. in Missouri or Nebraska, j 
would be as acceptable a neighbor to me, and, as I j 
thought, would be to Iowa, as one of those new 
emigrants. I hope, now, that I am understood on 
that matter. 

The branch of the subject which I was discuss¬ 
ing at the lime of the adjournment yesterday, was 
that not only the terms, obligations, and implica¬ 
tions of the Missouri compromise had been disre¬ 
garded in fact, but that the remarks of the senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] showed that it 
was disregarded and violated in spirit. I was 
making some remarks. also, not by way of repri¬ 
mand certainly, because I have no right to repri¬ 
mand him, but such as I thought ought to have 
refuted and rebuked him, when he undertook to say 
that education in the south was neglected, and 
that the name of a slaveholder was a by-word and 
a reproach to the civilized world. I am a slave¬ 
holder, and I have a right to take exception to such 
remarks. 

Mr. SUMNER. Slave-dealer, not slave-owner, 
was the word I used. I said that I understood 
that, even in the slave States, the name of slave-1 
dealer was a by-word and a reproach. I have un- ' 
darstood so from slaveholders themselves. 

Mr. SHIELDS. That was the Senator's lan¬ 
guage. 

Mr. BUTLER. I thought he used the remark 
in relation to a slaveholder. 

Mr. SUMNER. No, sir, but in relation to a 
slave-dealer. 

Mr. SHIELDS. I recollect distinctly that such 
was the Senator’s expression. 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, in the remarks 
which I have made in reference to such sugges¬ 
tion as were advanced by the senator froln Mas¬ 
sachusetts, I have endeavored to confine myself 
within the province of parliamentary courtesy and 
propriety, and I certainly have no disposition to 
go further. It is but fair now that I should dis¬ 
tinctly state that, notwithstanding the effort which 
has been made to throw into the shade of the con¬ 
trast the civilization and the morality of the south 
in comparison with that of the north, 1 think the 
census will show, and fairness would suggest, 
that, in mnny respects at least the north, has no 
righ to court such a comparison. I will ask my 
friend from Florida, who sits beside me, to read 
an extract which I have taken from a speech de¬ 
livered by an honorable gentleman from Missouri. 
Mr. Anderson ; and an admirable speech it is. I 
have taken the liberty to extract from it some sta- 
lictics, which I ask my friend from Florida to read, > 


Mr. Mallory read as follows. 

“I have been at some pains to procure from official and 
authentic sources a few statements somewhat illustrative 
of these questions, and respectfully submit the following 
facts and figures for the purpose of comparing accounts 
wjth our northern neighbors. The United States census 


shows that— 

The population of Massachusetts Is. 993,499 

The population of Tennessee is.1,092,625 

Tennessee excess of inhabitants. 8,126 

“pauperism. 

Massachusetts has.5,549 paupers. 

Tennessee . 591 “ 

Excess in Massachusetts .4,958 


“Massachusetts, with 8,126 inhabitants less than Tennes¬ 
see, has over eight times as many paupers. 

“insane. 


Massachusetts..1,647 

Tennessee .. 478 

Excess of Massachusetts. 1,169 


“Thus, this State that boasts of its moral and religious at¬ 
tainments, its exemption from slavery, and the supposed 
evils attendant upon it, has three times and a half the 
amount of insanity that exists in Tennessee. 

“CHURCHES. 

“Massachusetts, 1,430—1 to every 695 persons. 

“Tennessee, 1,939—1 to every 517 persons. 

“Kentucky has a population, including her slaves, of 
952.405 ; Connecticut, including her paupers, 370,791. Ken¬ 
tucky has, as you will perceive, nearly three times the 
population of Connecticut. 

“Pauperism. —Connecticut 1.744—or, 1 to every 253 in¬ 
habitants. Kentucky, 777. 

“Kentucky, with three times the population, has less than 
half the number of paupers—or, only one to every 1,380 in¬ 
habitants. 

“Insane. —Connecticut, 462—or, 1 to every 502 inhabit¬ 
ants. 

“Kentucky, 507—or, not 1 to every 1.937 inhabitants 

“Churches. —Connecticut, 719—or, 1 to e.very 519 inhabit¬ 
ants. 

“Kentucky, 1,018—or, 1 to every 540 inhabitants, includ¬ 
ing her slaves. 

“The Manufacture of Ardent Spirits.— Massachusetts 
and Connecticut, jointly, manufacture annually the im¬ 
mense amount of 4.037,000 gallons. 

“Kentucky and Tennessee only 2.148,945 gallons, 

“The joint population of Massachusetts and Connecticut 
is 1,365,290; that of Kentucky and Tennessee is 1.985,030. 
Thus, Massachusetts and Connecticut, with a population ot 
upwards of half a million less than Kentucky and Tennes¬ 
see, annually sends forth 1,886,255 gallons more of liquid 
fire to burn up the stomachs, bewilder the intellects, iniiame 
the passions, rob the families, destroy the happiness, and 
damn the souls of thousands of human beings, who might 
otherwise be happy, sober, and useful members of society. 
The horrible details of crime, pauperism, and want, pub¬ 
lished in the police reports of the city of Philadelphia. 
New York and Boston, alone exhibit a degree of depravity 
unparalleled in the records of all the southern States 
combined. Is it true, then, that the institution of do¬ 
mestic slavery tends to demoralization among those who 
tolerate it? Let the foregoing facts answer, aud mark the 
tale they tell.” 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I have resorted 
to facts, and facts are stubborn things” in argu¬ 
ment. I have drawn no contrast in all that I have 
said. I have not claimed for the south any supe¬ 
riority; and I have not detracted from the north 
any of her merits, nor do 1 intend to do so now. 
The pauperism, the lunacy, and the drunkenness 
in those States may he attributable to a very dif¬ 
ferent cause, from the fact that they are a non¬ 
slaveholding population. It may arise from the 
fact that there is a more dense population than 
that which exists in the States with which they 
have been brought into comparison ; or it may 
arise from the fact that- 





























9 


Mr. EVERETT. Will my friend from South j| 
Carolina yield me the lloor lor a moment ? 

Mr. BUTLER. Certainly. 

Mr. EVERETT. I simply rise to say that 
Massachusetts relieves annually from eleven to 
twelve thousand foreign paupers, who are thrown 
in upon us in consequence of the great tide of 
immigration from Europe. 

Mr. BUTLER. I was about to to suggest that 
as one of the causes. I do, not mention these 
things as matter of reproach to the north at all; 
but I was going on to show that I, who represent 
the south, will not take advantage of matters of 
this kind to throw either the one or the other sec¬ 
tion into the shade of the contrast. It might not 
be fair to do so. The senator from Massachu¬ 
setts has anticipated me as to one point, which I 
would otherwise have mentioned. I think it very 
probable that some of these results are attributa¬ 
ble to the cause which he has named. In regard 
—to the spirits which, it is mentioned in these sta¬ 
tistics, go out from the north, I may say that 1 
think abolitionism is one of the tributary streams 
inflaming, maddening, and distracting the public 
mind of the country, and may lead to results 
more baneful than those that follow the vice of in¬ 
temperance. These results will be sectional alien¬ 
ation, local division, injustice, civil strife, and per¬ 
haps servile insurrection. I think the best anti¬ 
dote for ihe latter would be to send the slaves to 
the north where they would find hunger and con¬ 
tumacious neglect strong inducements to go back 
home. 

In this part of my speech, somewhat resem¬ 
bling an episode, I will make allusion to some 
other topics of northern peculiarity—partially so, 
at least. 

Sir, our forefathers—I allude to those who were 
representatives from and inhabitants of the north, 
and I do not know that I shall mention a southern 
name—Gouverneur Morris, John Hancock, Sam¬ 
uel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and all that illus¬ 
trious association of patriots, were not agitators 
and intermeddlers. When they mingled in tbecom- 
mon councils of the country, they never thought 
it necessary or proper to make any such allusions 
as have been made by the honorable senator from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner-.] They regarded 
their southern confederates not only as equals, but 
as friends ; nay, more, without thinking of dis¬ 
tinctions, they respected them for their wisdom, 
integrity, virtue, and patriotism. They held and 
expressed opinions upon the subject of slavery j 
with perfect indifference, as far as I can see, as { 
regards tbe /act whether they were entertained by 
northern or by southern men. The quest oa, how¬ 
ever, assumes a very different character when 
northern men take the position of adversaries to 
require the south to submit to certain terms which 
they may think proper to propose, under an ex¬ 
clusive judgment as to the institution of slavery. 
In common counsel, where good faith and a non- ! 
adversary spirit prevailed, southern as well as 
nornern men expressed their opinion on slavery 
without thinking whether they belonged to one 
section of the Union or the other. They were 
philosophical statesmen, not sectional adversaries, I 
and dealt with slavery as an element that must j 
enter into the judgment that was to form and con- j 
trol the destinies of a confederacy of political ; 
equals. 

Sentimental policy is of recent growth. 

It was said of Rome, Mr. President, that when !| 
her morals were most corrupt her legislation was i 


most sentimental. Juvenal, who describes m 
such vivid colors the degeneracy, the debauchery, 
and the corruption which prevailed in the days of 
the emperors of the Roman people, in two lines 
has drawn the contrast between the simple virtues 
of the time when Cato lived and when Tiberius 
reigned. I recollect that, in one of his satires, he 
says: the same star that shone upon Scipio’s le¬ 
gions marching to victory found the degenerate 
youth of his own Jay strangers to their couches j 
a youth consuming the day in sloth, and wasting 
the night in vice. Quintilhan, I think, has said 
that the Attic style which prevailed when Cicero 
spoke, and Atticus wrote, and when republican 
purity and simplicity gave tone to taste, no longer 
survived when Asiatic splendor and gorgeous ex¬ 
travagance were employed to express sentiment, 
more than thought and virtue. I will not say that 
the honorable senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Sumner] has adopted the Asiatic in preference to 
the Attic style, because I would not do him in¬ 
justice upon any occasion ; but I will say what is 
the truth, that this pseudo philanthropy which is 
now. to some extent, prevading the public mind 
of the north, was unknown to the hardy morality 
of our forefathers. They were practical statesmen 
that could deal with all the elements of a different 
society with justice, and not rhetorical dialecti¬ 
cians, who would make such elements themes, 
for their mere eloquence and professions of philan¬ 
thropy—such as would free the slave, and after¬ 
wards subject him to starvation—a philanthropy 
that is healed into a flame more to hate the white 
race than to preserve the black; a philanthropy ot 
adoption more than affection ; one that professes 
much and does nothing, with along advertisement 
and short performance. 

I am, however, entirely satisfied that a majority 
of the northern men disposed to do justice, and 
willing to understand the institutions of the south, 
would be the very last men to put those instita- 
tions under the ban of proscription, with reckless 
indifference to consequences and truth. It may be 
assumed as a fact, more frequently in private than 
publicly expressed, that those best acquainted 
with the institutions, civilization, and social habits 
of the people of the southern States, are better 
reconciled to them than are those who stand aloof 
and hold up an ideal standard of morality, embla¬ 
zoned by imagination and sustained in ignorance, 
or, perhaps, more often planted by a criminal am¬ 
bition and heartless hypocrisy. 

I appeal to those who hear me, if gentlemen who. 
have gone to the south, who have lived amidst 
slaveholders, who have partaken of their hospi¬ 
tality, and have seen the administration of justice 
and all the graver forms of civilization there, are 
not better reconciled to the institution of slavery 
than that class and school of persons who read 
and take in their notions from “Uncle Tom’s 
Cabin?” 

Sir, there are various isms at the north, and 
there is but one of them for which I have any re¬ 
spect, and that is Puritanism. The Puritan, who 
came to this country with the sword in one hand 
and the Bible in the other, was an honest man, 
though he may have made a mistake in some of 
his peculiarities; but when we come to abolition¬ 
ism, Maine-liquor-law-ism. to strong-minded wo¬ 
man-ism, Bloomerisrn, and all the isms which now 
pervade some portions of the north, I am far from 
supposing that they do infuse into the social sys¬ 
tem anything like a healthful action. No,sir; they 
are the cankers of theoretical conceit, of impudent 



















10 


intrusion, and cheerless infidelity. They are the 
fungi of self-constituted societies, or the organiza¬ 
tion of church and Stale. They are impudent 
usurpers. The most extraordinary development 
ot that class of persons and that temper of society, 
that gives rise to such isms, is to be found in con¬ 
ventions of women, who step from the sphere pre- > 
scribed to them by God to enter into the political j 
arena and claim the rights of men. 1 have a pro- [ 
found respect for woman in all the true relations ! 
for which she is fitted. Man always has a respect 
for woman. So long as she confines herself within 
the jurisdiction prescribed to her by the Almighty, 
she fulfills the ends of her existence; but when she j 
passes those lines, and undertakes to intrude her- i 
self into a jurisdiction not assigned to her, I re- 1 
gard her as committing an impious trai agression. 
Her sphere is higher than that of man—more sub¬ 
lime in spirit, and more useful in moulding society 
to the obligations of virtue, the influence of reli¬ 
gion, and the happiness of affection and friend¬ 
ship. Her’s is the sphere of love, and affection, 
and benevolence. What bounds are there to the 
sphere of a mother’s love, a daughter’s and sister’s 
tenderness, or a wife’s devotion 1 ? I know of 
none. 

Washington Irving has beautifully remarked, 
that the “heart is the woman's world.” It is there 
her ambition should seek for empire, and her ava- 
rice seek for hidden treasures. But when she un- ! 
Sexes herself, and puls on the habiliments, and i 
claims to exercise the masculine functions of man I 
in society, she has lost the position which she j 
should occupy. 

Sir, I am now speaking on a subject which, as I ! 
think, is intimately connected with the sentiments j 
which the honorable senator from Massachusetts ! 
(Mr. Sumner) has put forth ; and with some of the 
sentimentality which he has expressed. If I were 
to say^any one thing more true than another on 
this point, it is, that, when woman violates the law 
which God has given her, she has no law, and is 
the creature of hateful anarchy. She may be the 
worst or the best of human beings. She may ap¬ 
proach the angel, or she may assimilate herself to 
the demon. 

Sir, no one understood the feelings and senii- 
ments of human nature better than that poet, who 
has so ofteir been quoted here—William Shaks- 
peare. When he chooses to exhibit a being giv¬ 
ing herself up to her criminal ambition, and to en¬ 
tertain a disposition which even a bad man could 
not, he has drawn it with remarkable effect in the 
play of Macbeth. When Macbeth himself was 
disposed to recoil from (lie horrors of committing 
a treacherous murder, he was urged on by Lady 
Macbeth to the last extremity. On his replying to 
her— 

“J dare do all that may become a man, 

Who dares do more is none.” 

Her reply has always struck me as one of the 
most powerful illustrations of that criminal trans¬ 
gression of the jurisdiction of woman. She said: 

“-I have given suck; and know 

How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me: 

I would, while it is smiling in my facn, 

Hiive pfucked my nipple from its boneless gums, 

And dashed the brains out, bad I so sworn, as you 

Have done, to this.” 

These are sentiments which are likely to pre¬ 
vail, if these women in men's clothes are to take : 
upon themselves the jurisdiction which they claim, j 
These are part of the isms which have resulted, I j 
may say, from abolitionism. They are, at least,! 


the symptoms of a dangerous revolution in the so¬ 
cial organization. 

Whilst 1 have given some attention to the re- 
marks of the senators from Massachusetts and 
Ohio, (Messrs. Sumner and Chase,) I cannot, in 
justice to myself, pass over some of the remarks 
of the senator from New York, (Mr. Seward.) 
He entertains opinions, and is inculcating doc¬ 
trines which are, perhaps, peculiar to himself. 
He is a kind of Moses, so far as regards the posi¬ 
tion which he has taken, as one having a right to 
give law by a communication with Divinity. 
Whilst Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Morris, 
and all our forefathers, were willing to be gov¬ 
erned by a Constitution to which they had given 
their consent, and to whose obligations they were 
willing to be bound, he claims a sublime exemp¬ 
tion, and professes to be governed by a higher law. 
He assumes to be the apostle of a law that would 
substitute his judgment for the law of the Consti¬ 
tution, as almost all others understand it; and I 
believe he has made a convert, such as Miss Bre¬ 
mer, et omne genus. He, par excellence , lifts him¬ 
self above the age in which he lives—like the con¬ 
dor that soars in the frozen regions of etherial pu¬ 
rity, yet lives on garbage and putrefaction. 

I must, Mr. President, deny the claim of the 
senator from New York to be the author of the law 
which he undertakes to administer or propagate. 
Sir. the teacher of that law was an ancient author, 
ft was no less than the serpent who crept into the 
garden of Eden and whispered to Eve that there 
was a higher law She was banished from the 
garden, and Paradise was lost. But as I do not 
see the gentleman in his place. I will withhold the 
lash of ridicule and satire which I might have in¬ 
dicted on him with justice. 

I forbear, and shall how approach the subject in 
debate with a view of considering an important 
branch of it—one which has deeply affected the 
interests of this country; one that was the prece¬ 
dent of 1820, and now claimed to have the pre¬ 
scription of finding authority equal to that of the 
Constitution itself. 

Upon a moment’s reflection, however, I will 
make one or two other remarks before I touch the 
question indicated. *1 will conclude my reply to 
the gentlemen referred to by propounding some • 
interrogatories to them ; and I believe they are in¬ 
terrogatories which they cannot answer consist¬ 
ently with the truth of their professions. They 
are interrogatories which 1 do not expect them to 
answer; such interrogatories which I know they 
cannot answer without falsehood and hypocrisy. 
They may take the alternative as maintaining as 
true what they had said in ignorance, delusion, 
and prejudice, or acknowledge that, in the light of 
intelligence, they are criminals before the bar of, 
i history, and deserve the judgment that should be 
awarded to criminal agitators who can kindle the 
fires of incendiaries, and have not the courage to 
help extinguish them. 

The senator from Massachusetts said there was 
no Joshua to command the sun whose rays are to 
melt the fetters of the slave to stand still.’but that 
this agitation is to go on and on until they are 
melted. He thinks all these attempts at compro¬ 
mise are but as banks of sand to give way to the 
tide which is pouring down, and which ultimately 
must prevail to break down the institutions of the 
south. Now, there are more than three millions 
of slaves in the south. If Georgia, South Caro¬ 
lina, and Virginia each were to offer to send five 
thousand of them to Massachusetts, would she 
















11 


have them ? If we were disposed to emancipate 
them, and hand them over to the gentlemen’s phi¬ 
lanthropy, would they receive them? No, sir; 
instead of receiving them with paternal embraces, 
they would resist them with the bayonet. 

Suppose these gentlemen should succeed now 
in being able to declare that the letters ofthe black 
man should be struck from him ; I say that no 
man, acting upon the responsibility of a moral 
agent, dare pronounce such a fiat. It would be 
the most cruel act that had ever been done under 
the authority, or the guise, or the forms of law. I 
have always considered that the act of Ferdinand 
in driving the Jews from Spain was one of the 
most cruel recorded in history; but this would 
be far worse. The men whom Ferdinand exc'uded 
had a status , a caste, and they could take their po¬ 
sition in society; but where would these crea¬ 
tures go ? What would become of them ? Would 
consign them to the wilderness to live with 
the Indians upon the precarious supplies furnished 
by hunting? Their habits, their inclinations, ev¬ 
erything connected with them, unfit them for it. 
They would inevitably perish. The gentlemen can 
propose nothing for their relief, and yet they are 
willing to agitate, and say their fetters shall fall 
ofl! Where will you send them? To Africa? 
They would not go could they see their fate ; they 
could not go ? but if it were possible tor them to 
go, they would relapse into barbarism. Will yon 
set them free with a view to annoy their masters ? 
Why, if every slave in South Carolina and Geor¬ 
gia—1 speak of these two States particularly— 
were set free to-morrow, and were allowed to live 
in society there, and should contract debts, they 
would be more effectually slaves than the white 
slaves in some of the northern States. They 
could not support themselves except under the 
white man’s guardianship. What then are you to 
do with these people when you speak of loosening 
their fellers? You of the north will not take 
them. Where will you send them? Would yon 
require us to keep them? Ilow are we to sup¬ 
port them ? It would be a mercy to them to 
cut their throats sooner than condemn them to 
your philanthropy. In his true relation the 
black man may be a contented and useful be¬ 
ing. Iam willingtobe his protector to the best 
of my ability, whether he be a slave or a free man 
of color : and if he had a full knowledge of my dis¬ 
position towards him. he would regard me more 
than those who deceive him. 

I went through, yesterday, some of the topics 
which have been discussed by the honorable gen¬ 
tlemen who have opposed this bill, who have 
talked of bad faith, and of the observance of the 
MLsso nri compromise. In speech and letter I en- 
de^vored to show that it had been disregarded. 
My friend from North Carolina [Mr. Badger | 
spoke so fully on these points, that it was almost ' 
unnecessary for me to touch upon them at ail; 
and yesterday my friend from Virginia [Mr. Hun¬ 
ter] took from me nearly all that 1 could say upon 
the other features of the subject. Having shown 
yesterday that the Missouri compromise was not 
only disregarded and violated, but that the whole 
spirit of it, that should inculcate harmony, has 
been offensively abused in the Senate and House, 

I go to the next proposition, which I propose to 
discuss, that there was no constitutional compe¬ 
tency in Congress to adopt such an arbitrary line 
as that indicated in what is called the Missouri 
compromise line—a line made in the spirit of com¬ 
promise, without the authority of competent par¬ 


ties ; a line not like that made by the Patriarchs, 
with the option of each, and observed with good 
faith by both ; not a line of peace, but of strife; 
not a line that would serve as a wall of protection 
| for one party, against the invasions of another; 
but a line of odious distinction, to court hostile 
controversy. 

Mr. President, this government has been in op- 
; eration for about sixty-five years. There is a pro¬ 
vision in the Constitution for its expansibility by 
amendment. It was supposed that when the ex¬ 
igencies of society, and the progress of events 
might require it. the Constitution would be so mod¬ 
ified and amended as to accommodate itself to the 
new state of things. It has been in operation for 
sixty-five years, and there have been no amend¬ 
ments, except such as were adopted immediately 
after it went into operation. Laws are stationary; 
things are progressive. We have been going on, 
and occasions have occurred which called for some 
amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States. None was proposed, or if proposed, none 
was adopted. 

How has that deficiency been supplied? By 
compromises, devolving upon a majority of Con¬ 
gress the province of deciding what is the mean¬ 
ing, or what should be the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution, by adding to the constitution the power 
of the strong to make compromises wiih the 
weak. In this way, instead of three-fourths of the 
States amending the constitution, a majority of 
Congress has as-urned the province of doing so 
by compromises. I have, upon this ground, op¬ 
posed all compromises, unless they were such aa 
were consistent with the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted Slates. I regard the Missouri compromise as 
a fatal error on the part of our ancestors. 1 grant 
that it was an error committed in honorable faith, 
under the expectation that all ils obligations and 
all its requirements would be observed and ful¬ 
filled. They have not been.” If there were no oth¬ 
er ground, the southern portion of the confedera¬ 
cy, from this fact alone, would he absolved from 
all claims to be called upon to observe it. It 
wants all the elements of a competent compact— 
it wants proper parties—it wants the constitu¬ 
tional consent of the States, properiv expressed, 
according to the laws of the bond of union; and 
that bond recognises no such parties as north and 
south. Norih arid south never made a bond of 
compact. Thirteen Commonwealths, sovereign 
republics, made a confederacy of equal States, to 
be governed by the terms of a written constitu¬ 
tion, with definite and limited powers to those 
who were to administer the government under its 
provisions. In the effort to make the compromise, 
the agent usurped a power that belonged exclu¬ 
sively to the con-tituting principle. To some ex¬ 
tent the principle may have affirmed the compro¬ 
mise. but with no such acquiescence as could 
bind either party, where the provisions of the 
compromise have either been changed by another 
compromise, or disregarded by either party. 

But l go further, and say that I know of no 
shadow of authority in the federal government 
to adopt such a provision as that which is con¬ 
tained in what is called the Missouri compromise, 
to wit: that the line of 36° 30'should be the di¬ 
viding line between the Territories where slavery 
should be prohibited, and where it might lie al¬ 
lowed. The very fact that such a line could be 
established would give to Congress unlimited dia- 
j creiion over this subject. If you admit the power 
! of Congress to fix the line of 3G° 30 / , where is the 


/ 




















12 


limit of it? If you can fix that line, you can go !j 
wherever you choose. Where does Congress de- | 
rive such power? Is it found in the Constitution? 

I presume no one will contend that there is an ex¬ 
press grant of such authority. But, sir, if there 
is any one thing truer than another, it is that these 
States entered into this confederacy as equals, | 
each one claiming to be the peer of the other ; and j 
it never could, in such a compact, have been at | 
all inferable that, tinder any state of affairs, and j 
in any progress of events, because slaves were | 
emancipated in some portions of the Union, those 
States should acquire the power to emancipate 
them in others, or control the institution of slavery, 
directly or indirectly. So far as regards the com¬ 
mon rights of the south, could it be possible that, 
because Massachusetts and New York thought 
proper to emancipate their slaves, ihey should ac¬ 
quire any power, by their separate or by their j 
joint State action,which did not belong to them be- | 
fore, to acquire an ascendency over the weaker j 
party? If so, the weaker must necessarily be 
subject to what is the most arbitrary of all powers, 
legislative discretion. As Lord Camden says,! 
“ discretion is a tyrant.” There is no limit to it. It j 
must go on, and you cannot control it, if the un-j| 
limited right of compromise be allowed. The jj 
southern portion of this Union has no rights that j 
it can preserve, if it surrender to the power of: 
compromise. In such a position it will be the | 
sheep drinking in a stream beneath the wolf. The i 
South should never take refuge in compromises ; j 
and, with a united voice against them, she may i 
stand firm and self-defending forever. 

My friend from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] read to j 
the Senate that clause of the Constitution which 
provides that the citizens of each State shall have 
all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the j 
citizens of the several Slates. The territory of I 
the United States is the common property of all 
the States. It has been acquired by the common i 
treasure and by the common blood. Why should i 
one partner, because he lias acquired a new influ- j 
ence from the legislation of his neighbors, havej 
any higher power to control and disfranchise the 
weaker partner ? Suppose this case : that to-mor¬ 
row, Captain Ingraham and one hundred other 
slaveholders, with two hundred non-slaveholding 
naval officers and marines, should discoyer an 
island which neyer had been heard of before, with 
all the rich varieties of soil calculated for the labcr 
of the southern slaves, - what would you think if. 
oo instanti upon their discovery, when they en- { 
tered upon the island and claimed all the rights of j 
discovery, the two hundred non-slaveholdiug gen- j 
tlemen should undertake to decide that the one !j 
hundred slaveholders should be excluded from the jj 
right to the use of that common property ? 1 have jj 
always taken the ground that we are, as States, j 
tenants in common in the territory which is the pro- ’■ 
perty of the United States. If this republic should ! 
be dissolved to-morrow, I take it for granted that j 
the States would fall back as entities , each one i 
claiming, and being entitled to claim, an equal !; 
share in the common property of the country. The !| 
States, in the dissolution of the copartnership, I 
would be the parties in the indenture to be re-j 
garded ; each would be a party. If you act upon j 
any other principle, ifycu act upon the process of j 
reasoning and the mode of conducting public of- j 
fairs which led to the formation of the Missouri : 
compromise, it will be readily seen that the majo- j 
rity could soon absorb every other power, and the ; 
minority would be entirely at the mercy of an irre- ; 


sponsible and tyrannical majority, and the Con¬ 
stitution could not stand as any barrier or guard 
for their protection. 

Mr. Pinckney well said, during the discussion 
of the Missouri compromise—I remember bis ex- 
pession well: “ Ye senators may assume to your¬ 
self the power, because you are in the majority,of 
imposing this restriction upon Missouri; but I tell 
you it is a wilderness of power.” Yes, sir, it is a 
‘‘wilderness of power,” so far that no one can 
trace or control it. The temptation of interest, the 
sentiment of the day, the influence of faction, may- 
give the direction of the surveyor, instead of the 
compass, that indicates the line to the observed. 
I want the compass of true faith to traverse and 
maintain the map of the Constitution. Where 
can a majority of Congress derive the power to 
run ati arbitrary line through the common territo¬ 
ries of the Union, disfranchising one part and 
throwing into the shade of the contrast the south¬ 
ern members of the • confederacy, because they 
have a different kind of property from property 
owned by gentlemen in the north? The States 
originally entered into the confederacy as equals, 
impelled by the highest motives to form and per¬ 
petuate a Union which should advance the great 
cause of republican liberty. Does such a restric- 
.tion as the Missouri compromise retain that fea¬ 
ture of equality ' 2 Suppose equality was promised 
by it: what Terminus could preside over anc pre¬ 
serve the line? Will his counsellors be justice 
and truth, or will they be interest and corruption? 
Suppose a gallant crew, trusting in each other’s 
honesty and good faith, were to embark in a ves¬ 
sel at sea, under definite articles of equal copart¬ 
nership. and that one portion should assume, in 
violation of the f undamental principles—not terms 
only —of equality, to construe the terms of the co¬ 
partnership so as to give and distribute the fruits 
of the voyage to one recognised class in prefer¬ 
ence to another; what would be thought of such 
a proceeding? Would it not. before the bar of 
justice, before the tribunal of a common judgment, 
be a cause of just complaint? Would it not justify 
the weaker party in consulting measures of self- 
preservation ? Sir, rather than remain on such a 
ship—talked of as an equal, but spurned as an 
inferior—would not the weaker party be doing 
the highest office of duty and honor to quit the 
ship, and tvke to the boats, trusting to the winds 
and the waves for their fortunes; and if the ship 
were to perish, would they not be justified ? 

But why should gentlemen insist so strenuously 
upon the right to impose or retain this restriction ? 
The north, is in a majority, and if Nebraska and 
Kansas to-morrow were to become slaveholding 
Territories, the north would still be in a majority.. 
Whenever they think proper to use their power, 
they can do it. If they do not acknowledge the 
counsels of magnanimity, and are disposed to fol¬ 
low the dictates of power, they are always able to 
do so ; and if they claim such a jurisdiction, by the 
exercise of a majority, there is no limit to this 
government, and this confederacy will be resolved 
into a confederacy in which an unlimited and un¬ 
controllable majority shall rule. 1 know. sir. that 
it may be regarded as the result of what are called 
democratic institutions. I have no more regard 
for the despotism of a democracy than I have for 
any other despotism. Unless it can be controlled, 
unless limitations can be imposed upon a democ¬ 
racy, it becomes no less despotic than any other 
form of government. The very name may give it 
the power to do injustice. I want a government 























13 


that can be controlled by rule, and not one that 
has to be reformed by revolution—a government 
that rests upon some veto power against an irre¬ 
sponsible will. 

The Missouri line of 36° 30', in my Judgment, 
absolutely brought in hostile array, in these halls, 
the two sections of the Union : and, as I said yes¬ 
terday, I believe that, instead of Peace, with heal¬ 
ing upon her wings, presiding over this line, Plec¬ 
tra, with hissing snakes from her head, and the 
torch of discord in her hand, has been upon it. It 
is an arbitrary line; and, as Mr. Jefferson said, its 
establishment has been most unfortunate. I see 
no authority for it in the Constitution. The south 
has never acquiesced in it further than as a volun¬ 
tary offering to preserve the Union. 

I know it has been said that South Carolina, 
and some of the other States, were whiling to agi¬ 
tate the matter to promote a dissolution of the 
Union. I read yesterday from Mr. Calhoun’s last 
speech, and I think I know his sentiments. I 
have heard him say, and I have heard others say. 
that no portion of the confederacy has made great¬ 
er sacrifices to preserve the Union than the south. 
In fact, I know of no sacrifices to preserve the 
Union which have been made on the part of the 
north. All the sacrifices which have been made 
have been exacted from those who were willing 
to preserve the Union rather than see the great 
cause of republican liberty put into jeopardy. But 
like the lever running down the inclined plane in 
the form of a screw, we have been crushed lower, 
and lower, and lower; we have submitted to com¬ 
promise after compromise, until it seems to me we 
arerlikely to be compressed by this descending 
machine, oiled by northern fanaticism. In the 
main, how'ever, I must admit that the south, long 
before the agitations which have lately disturbed 
us, manifested too much distrust in her institu- 
tutions ; not me, (I would likely have done the 
same,) but those who have gone before us have 
made the admissions which are quoted in the hol¬ 
low spirit of hypocrisy against us. I maintain, 
then, that the Missouri compromise was, is, and 
always should be. regarded, even in reference to 
its practical operation, as unconstitutional, alien 
to the spirit and unknown to the principles of 
equality recognised in the Constitution of the fed¬ 
eral government. I adopt the reasoning of my 
friend from Virginia upon this point. He has so 
fully elucidated it, that I need not detain the Sen¬ 
ate longer upon it. Whilst I might say more for 
the public—whilst I might claim much merit, as 
one giving the original argument—I will not allow 
myself here to repeat what has been much better 
said by others, and which may never reach those 
who will read this. 

Mr. President, there are some provisions of the 
bill of which I do not approve. I have said so to 
wiy friends. I know, however, that, in a measure 
of this kind, all minus willing to carry out a com¬ 
mon object and effect a common good cannot 
agree as to details. We must give and take, bear 
and forbear. I am willing to take the bill as re¬ 
ported by the senator from Illinois, and as it now 
stands as an entirety, and vote upon it. I know, 
sir, that it has been said that we are parting with 
a great power in giving to the people of the Ter¬ 
ritories the right to regulate their own concerns, 
according to their own opinions, independent of 
the control of Congress. I admit of no such 
principle. Justice to myself, the honest convic¬ 
tions of my mind, as well as the authority of 
great minds, who have expressed themselves 


I upon this subject, will never allow me to assent 
: to the doctrine that the first comers upon the soil 
of a Territory can appropriate it, and become sov¬ 
ereigns over it. No, sir; the federal government 
stands to the Territories in the relation of a guard¬ 
ian to a ward. Look at the bill as it stands. 

> It prescribes a government for the people of Ne- 
I braska and Kansas; but if this spontaneous, this 
j inherent popular sovereignty is to spring up the 
! moment the people settle in a Territory, and as¬ 
semble to form a government, why have any bill 
to put them into operation at all? You give them 
a chart, and say they must obey it. Suppose they 
do not choose to obey it. Suppose that the first 
act you get from the Territory of Nebraska or 
Kansas is one declaring that no slaveholder shall 
be eligible to office in either of those Territories, 

I or that no one professing the Catholic religion 
I or that no Jew shall be eligible to office, or that 
| the Mormons shall have a preference, would you 
| tolerate it? According to some notions which I 
i have heard expressed here, having put this 
I machinery of government in operation, you have 
| no power to control it. In other words, it is con- 
J tended that, though a territorial government is 
i one under a power of attorney emanating from a 
principal, yet as soon as the power of attorney is 
signed by the principal, it becomes irrevocable, 
and that then the attorney can do anything which 
he pleases without the controlling or revoking 
power of the principal. 

If that were the case, I might hesitate to trust 
the people with the unlimited power which somfe 
seem to think have been devolved on them in this 
bill, but which cannot he implied, either from the 
opinions expressed here, or from the design of the 
bill itself. We must consult and obey the auspices 
under which we are going to act. What would be 
i thought if a collection of foreigners or citizens un- 
I der the lead of a man like Captain Walker, the 
filibuster, should go upon the soil of the United 
States, take possession of a portion of the territory 
of the United States, and set up a government for 
themselves ? They might, in such a ease, do either 
one or two things: they might either set lip the 
standard of rebellion, claiming the territory of an¬ 
other government, in which ease they might be 
invaded; or they might claim to be American citi¬ 
zens, with a right to govern themselves, in any 
| territory, free from any control, except their own 
[judgment. They certainly Height do so upon the 
, principle which is contended for by some gentle- 
j men. 1 think, however, that it is a wise principle 
of the common law that any one who enters under 
the title of another shall never dispute his land¬ 
lord’s title. If people settle upon the common 
territory of the Union, claiming to be citizens of 
| the United States, they have no right to dispute 
i their landlord’s title. The United States, through 
j the organic action of Congress, are their landlord; 
l and they have a right to prescribe the government 
| which those people shall observe, or the principles 
of government on which they shall act. Have 
j those people the right to be independent, and form 
| and mould such a government as they may think 
! proper? This would be making American terri- 
jj tory open to the combination of adventurers who 
| might think proper to settle on it, and make a 
1 government according to previous concert; to try 
j the experiment of some Platonic republic; to al- 
j low voluntary associations, to control, if not ex- 
1 elude, the institutions that should emanate from 
l| an organized and recognised government. It 
ti would be giving to anybody the rights of somebody. 




















14 


Sir, 1 know that it has been said that the Con¬ 
stitution of the United' States does not propria 
urigore go to the Territories. Now, the Constitu¬ 
tion admits of very different views. It has what 
may be regarded as agencies, such as the employ¬ 
ment of the President, judges, and other officers, 
with a view to carry out its provisions : but it has 
also a distinct code of laws ; and co rvstanti when 
any people settle upon the territory of the United 
Stales the Constitution goes there, as far those 
laws, independent of the agencies or machinery to 
carry them out, are concerned. A Territory, like 
a State, cannot pass an ex post Jacto law. The 
people of a Territory, as well as the people of' a 
State, must observe the obligation of treaties as 
the supreme law of the land. I might enumerate 
many of the provisions of the Constitution which 
constitute a code of laws. The Constitution be¬ 
comes law wherever there is a power either as¬ 
sumed or conferred to administer it. And none 
professing the faith and allegiance of American 
citizens can legislate without it. It is the mould of 
all American institutions, and under its authority 
Congress, and not squatters, claiming by mere 
settlement an inherent sovereignty, must give the 
chart of a government—a chart controllable by the 
trustee from which it emanated, with the controll¬ 
ing influence upon the trustee of the instrument 
from which he has derived his authority, the Con¬ 
stitution. It is but putting the territorial agency 
under the direction, guidance,and control of a con¬ 
stitutional trustee. It is but reducing to a consti¬ 
tutional trustee all matters that are publi.ce juris , 
and preserving a trust for those who are entitled 
to its enjoyment against the rapacity of a few who 
may claim the right of hasty occupation. 

The moment any people settle upon a common 
territory of the United States, claiming to be citi¬ 
zens of the United States, they enter as tenants 
oftbe United Slates, acknowledging that they hold 
under the Constitution of the United States; and 
if they were to attempt to change any of the laws 
made by Congress, they would, in my deliberate 
judgment, stand out in the altitude of rebellion. 

1 have, therefore, no idea that in the vote which 
I shall give upon this bill, I will be committing my¬ 
self to any such doctrine as that of the uncon¬ 
trolled sovereignty of the people of the Territo¬ 
ries. It is a subject which has been dismissed 
bere with a great deal of ability by Mr. Clay. Mr. 
Webster, Mr. Calhoun, and others; but, sir, when 
v'e come to investigate this idea of spontaneous 
sovereignty, what does it amount to ? Is the first 
man who goes into the territory a sovereign? 
May five or six meet in a bar-room, and enter into 
a government, and control the destinies of a 
Territory? I never will assent to any such doc¬ 
trine. Juan Fernandez or Robinson Crusoe might 
say: “I am monarch of all I survey.” American 
citizens, settling on American territory, must 
act under the limited monarchy of the Constitu¬ 
tion. That is the monarch of all it surveys, and 
it makes Congress the governor and trustee, with 
the power of delegating the agency to administer 
the trust with a limitation that it must be limited 
by considerations of equality. I know'that it is 
very common to attribute to the south some turn 
for metaphysical distinctions; and I may say that 
I do not regard Congress as sovereign; but I re¬ 
gard Congress as representing the sovereignty 
which the different States have yielded to the 
United States. In other words, South Carolina 
and Virginia agreed to give up portions of their 
sovereignty, to be exercised by Congress for the 


common benetit of all *he States; and within the 
spere of those delegations, the pownr of Congress 
is supreme. South Carolina has consented that 
Congress may do certain things for her; Virginia 
has consented that it may do the fame things for 
her; but never did either consent to give an un¬ 
limited power to Congress, or to part with what 
maybe regarded as one of the reserved rights of 
sovereignty in the enjoyment of the common prop¬ 
erty of the-eountry. I would not give up such a 
right to the transient population which makes 
a territorial government. What ought to lie le¬ 
gally, is what the Constitution contemplated 
should be. 

Under my views, nei her Congress nor a territo¬ 
rial government can do anything which is incon¬ 
sistent with the separate and combined sovereign¬ 
ties of the States. Common territory cannot be 
partially appropriated. One with a white dress, 
and others with dresses of different colors, are, not¬ 
withstanding the difference of their vestments, 
equal tenants in common. 

What is the ordinary course ofthings in relation 
to the government of newly-acquired territory, 
by either the arms or a treaty of the United States? 
The title of the States thereupon immediately at¬ 
taches, and a government, in the name and under 
the principles of the Constitution, is commenced. 
As soon as Congress can, it assumes the jurisdic¬ 
tion which belongs to the government of the Uni¬ 
ted States. It assumes the jurisdiction of pre¬ 
scribing a government for the people, as well »» 
taking care of the, territory as prop* rty. It as¬ 
sumes to perform a recognised function of a re¬ 
sponsible trustee, and to maintain the rights of 
all against the trespasses of any. 1 have never 
* considered that that power was derived from the 
provision of the Constitution which grants to Coa- 
| gress authority to dispose of and make all need¬ 
ful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
orother property belongingto the United States.” 
When I came here—and I was then a younger 
man than 1 am now, and certainly more inexpe¬ 
rienced—and heard that urged as the source of 
the power of Congress to govern a Territory, I 
was not at all satisfied. It had been assumed by 
Madison, and by a great many men ofwisdom and 
authority; but when there were no such issue# 
as have since occurred. Chief Justice Marshall, 
with a clearness and with a philosophical preci¬ 
sion which his mind impressed upon everything 
it touched, suggested the true doctrine. lie said 
that the very acquisition of a Territory, either by 
treaty or by war, carried with it the obligation to 
give it a government, If you had nothing but the 
Territory, you might dispose of it as property; but 
| if you found upon it people who had become citi¬ 
zens under the terms of the treaty, you were 
bound, ex necessitate rei , to exercise a resulting 
trust, and to give them a government. He con¬ 
tended that it resulted from the necessity of A,; 
l ease, and as incident to the right of dominion, to 
! give them such a government; and therefore the 
right to govern must necessarily grow out of the 
plenary power of every owner of property, and 
every governor of a people, to make such provi¬ 
sions as are consistent with the Constitution of 
the country. I put it upon this principle ; I will 
not elaborate the point further. 

My views upon this point are, Mr. President, 
j that Congress is the guardian from which the ter¬ 
ritorial government should emanate. Congress if 
| the trustee who should exercise a control over it 
! If a proposition were made that Congress should 




















15 


pass a territorial bill which should take away Irora 
them irrevocably the power of governing; the Ter¬ 
ritories, 1 never could agree to it. Then, I may 
be asked why I will vote for this bill, which in 
some measure may lead to these consequences. 
Sir, I shall vote for the bill because I am perfectly 
willing to trust the people ; and in the main, I do 
not know that those who settle in such numbers in 
the Territories, as to form a government, will not 
do right. 1 do not know that if one of their laws 
were sent to me, as chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, I should be very astute in lock¬ 
ing out for anything by which I could reverse or 
control it, because I have great confidence in the 
popular mind of the American people. I believe 
they are worthy of a trust; and in this instance I 
am willing to repose in them a trust which I think 
they will administer in justice. But if it were 
abused, by making invidious exceptions in reli¬ 
gion, such as preferring the Catholic to the Pro¬ 
testant. or the Ottoman to the Greek Church, or 
any of the distinctions which are revolting to the 
common principles of the Constitution of the 
United States, or if they attempted to pass a law 
containing the provision which has been so much 
reprobated, allowing polygamy, a plurality of 
wives, I should bring it promptly before the "Sen¬ 
ate. I have the constitution ol Utah before me 
siow; and il it should contain a provision so 
abominably averse to the laws and civilization of 
the United States as to sanction polygamy, I 
shofuld bring it to the Senate, and then I should be 
ab|h to see whether gentlemen would be willing 
to resume a jurisdiction over the subject. If we 
cannot resume a jurisdiction over the Territories 
in this mode, and if our power is ended when we 
put in operation the machinery of a territorial gov¬ 
ernment, there is an end of the subject. Can it be 
that a territorial people, under any form of power, 
whether it lie one claimed by themselves, or one 
that is conferred on them, can assume to do what 
Congress could not? It is unconstitutional for 
Congress to pass the Missouri compromise, or to 
impose territorial restrictions, but it may give the 
power to do so to clandestine squatters, &c. 

Having expressed my views freely, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, I am willing to take this bill as it is. I am 
willing to take it, even upon the assumption that 
no slaves will go into Nebraska or Kansas. I am 
willing to take it upon the ground that, if you 
adopt it, it will take a festering thorn from the 
side of the south. 1 am willing to take it upon 
t^ie ground that by it the sentiments of honor are 
regarded. Even if I were perfectly certain that 
the bill would operate injuriously to the south, 
with the convictions on ray mind that the Mis¬ 
souri compromise is unconstitutional, I should be 
bound to vote for the bill. I never will compro¬ 
mise with a measure of transient expediency. 
We, of the south, have lost by compromises. I 
lay this boldly to my northern fiiends; and there 
are some of them to whom I can appeal with con¬ 
fidence. There are men upon this floor who would 
maintain justice ; men both from the north and 
from the south ; and I would as soon trust the 
northern man, when he is honest, as anybody else, 
t say so of the Supreme Court. I would as soon 
trust the northern members of the Supreme bench, 
who are sworn to administer the law and observe 
the Constitution of the United States, as I would 
the southern judges who sit upon it. I think that, 
so far as regards the administration of the laws of 
the country affecting the north and the south, 
seme of the northern members of that court have 


been more favorable to the south than others. I 
do no not say that I like a northern man with 
southern principles, or a southern man with 
northern principles. I have no objection to a man 
having any principles, provided they are honest. 

I am willing, however, to trust judges upon the 
bench who are sworn to administer the law, anti 
observe the Constitution. I am, therefore, per¬ 
fectly willinglo trust this bill to fortune, under the 
impulse o (justice. 

Sir, I believe that Cicero, in his oration for Milo, 
said that, when Minerva hesitated, she did not dis¬ 
dain to call in the counsels of fortune. 1 am will¬ 
ing to believe that the destinies of this country 
maybe carried out by trusting the people. I have 
a confidence in the people. I have a belief that 
the great democratic spirit of this country will be 
guided by intelligence, honor, and justice. I am 
not one of those who believe that the masses 
should constitute the government. I have always 
said that I believed this was a confederacy of re¬ 
publics, and that the more distinct the entities of 
the States could be preserved, the better it woulu 
be in all respects. I would rather see it a confed¬ 
eracy of States than a democracy of conventions. 
All agencies that are employed to fuse the people 
of the United States into an entirety is wrong. It 
is giving up to party and party organization the 
controlling power contemplated in the Constitu¬ 
tion. It is to allow the masses, under the influ¬ 
ence of popular leaders, to control the judgment 
that should come from an organized will , duly ex¬ 
pressed with sound mind and disposing memory. 

I am willing to trust the people who have had 
inculcated upon them the principles of the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States, and who have been 
familiar with the great principles of Anglo-Saxon 
liberty. I am willing to trust those who under¬ 
stand the complications of a free government ; but 
I am not willing, and I never will be willing, to 
trust the simple despotism of a majority. I will 
always protest against that. If anything shall 
come up from either ofthose Territories, militating 
against the principles of the Constitution of the 
United States, and leading to the greatest catas¬ 
trophe which Mr. Calhoun said would befall this 
country, I should not hesitate to expose it as a 
member and the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. I will make any issue which the 
Constitution will allow me to make, and if agita¬ 
tion should growoutofit, be it so. I will hush up 
nothingwhen an exposure of the truth will main¬ 
tain equal rights and constitutional franchises. 

According to the tenor of my remarks. I wish 
nobody to come to my views where the Constitu¬ 
tion is concerned; and I certainly go to no one’s 
views where right is concerned—a fair under¬ 
standing, with generous cofidence, honest observ¬ 
ance of constitutional right. I am willing to em¬ 
bark Nebraska under the chart of this bill. She 
will be a fool not to consult the compass, and she 
will be wrecked if she does not consult the char: 
of her voyage and mission. 

This government can be preserved as an en¬ 
tirety. It can be preserved as a glorious republic 
of equal States, if you keep clear of that fanatical 
spirit which is nursed by a sickly, morbid, senti¬ 
mentality, inconsistent with the wisdom, and jus¬ 
tice, and responsibilities of a statesman. 

Sir, we have gone very far. We have discuss¬ 
ed these matters very often. This is a new issue. 
I do not know what is to be the consequence 
flowing from the judgment which may be pro¬ 
nounced upon it by the Senate and House of 















Representatives at this time. It may be, that it 
will serve to allord oil to the lamps of u wild and 
distracting fanaticism, or it may be, that they will 
be extinguished. God grant that the latter may 
be the case, and that reason, instead of frenzy, 
may rule the northern mind. The decision ol this 
question, whether made one way or the other, is 
not likely to make a practical difference as to the 
relative strength of the different portions of the 
confederacy ; for let it be decided either way, the 
north retains her ascendency. The south wants 
her heart lightened; not her power increased. 

The south has no bigotry, no disposition to 
make war upon or to assume an adversary posi¬ 
tion to the northern portion of this confederacy, if 
she can receive constitutional justice. .They nev¬ 
er have had any but the interests of equality. In¬ 
sinuations are frequently made against those who 
assume the attitude of secessionists. They occu¬ 
py a different position from those who call them¬ 
selves abolitionists. The former are defending 
their rights, the latter are aggressors. Sir, if the 
south, at any time were united, they coulc. stand 
on the threshold and say: ‘‘Thus far shall thou 
go, and no further.” If, however, they mean to 
go on with this agitation, I give notice, as far as I 
can speak for the south, that, if they keep it up, 
they must do so at the peril of this Union. 

I have not entered willingly into this discussion; 

I have had very little to do with this bill, and I 
believe the south has had very little to do with 
the provisions of the bill. It comes from the im¬ 
partial and just portion of the non-slaveholding 
States; and here let me pay a fair compliment to 
the honorable gentleman who has been so much 
aspersed upon the subject—the chairman of the 
Committee on Territories, [Mr. Douglas.] It is 
said that his proposition has assumed different 
.shapes, that it has been sometimes one thing and 
sometimes another. Why, sir, a wise man, in¬ 
tending to get across a river, will not go up the 
stream and be overwhelmed by the torrent, or 
meanly surrender and float down, as is very com¬ 
mon with those who find it easier to float than to 
cross, but he generally takes such a course as will 
enable him to accomplish his purpose. The chair¬ 
man has evinced uncommon address in presenting 
the bill to the Senate. lie has endeavored to ac- 
Lommodate himself from time to time to the pub¬ 
lic sentiment. Why. sir, if any premier in Eng¬ 
land were to undertake, at any time when the 
mind was not prepared for it, to introduce a bill, 
such as the Catholic emancipation bill, or the re¬ 
form bill, without regard to the temper of public 
sentiment, and what might be approved by 
public judgment, he would make a blunder; and 
.that, in popular estimation, is as bad almost as a 
crime. 

A wise man knows how to take advantage of 
circumstances. The difference between a partic¬ 
ular movement at one time and at another consti¬ 
tutes that^peculiar character which some men have 
of taking advantage of a favorable juncture of af¬ 
fairs—in common phrase, to strike when the iron 
is hot. You had better do a right thing than to | 
content yourself by saying it ought to be done. 


Words produce wrangle; acts require affirmation 
or rejection. 

If the honorable senator from Illinois has shown 
that address, and that judgment, and that wisdom, 
let him have the honor ol it. I know the asper¬ 
sions which have been thrown upon him. He 
does not need support from me. lie is sustained 
by liis own State. But, sir, the difference between 
rashness and timidity was never better illustrated 
than in the conversation between Telemachus and. 
Mentor. When Telemachus was willing rashly 
to take one course, he was reminded that he 
should not; Telemachus noticed that Mentor' 
trembled in the consideration of a measure, but 
became steady after his resolution to pursue it. 
“Why is this?” said the young man. The reply 
was: “I may well have trembled, because I savy 
the danger; but when resolved to meet it, I arm -j 
ed myself with the resolution that would enable I 
me to go through with success, or at once perish.”! 
Sir, the senator from Illinois has embarked upo r * j 
this question, knowing its perils ; and if he shu9 
be sustained by the country, he deserves the honor I 
of success. 

Before I take my seat, however, there is one 
thing to which I wish to refer, in order to prove, 
by the statements of history, a fact to which lad- 
verted yesterday, and which seemed to hav<|T ?en 
brought in question. I read, from the (I 
tions of the Massachusetts Historical Sociel 1 
the year 1795, in reference to the queries rJ I 
ing the slavery and emancipation of negrl 1 j 
Massachusetts, proposed by the Hon. Judge V ' 
er, of Virginia, and answered by Rev. Doctof; % 
nap: ff 

“Negro children were reckoned an incumbrance ih uV 
family ; and, when weaned, were given away like puppies. 
They have been publicly advertised in the newspapers, ‘ to 
be given away.’ ” 

Mr. SUMNER. At what time was that? 

Mr. BUTLER. As to the purpose for which I 
have read this extract time is wholly immaterial. 
It goes to show what the mind of a people is under 
the different circumstances under which it is ex¬ 
pressed; and the extract goes to show that thqf 
mind of Massachusetts was not always such 
the gentleman would represent it now. It goes to! 
show that she has been an anti- nigger Stale; and 
that when she had to deal with this class of per¬ 
son practically, her philanthropy became very much 
attenuated. Indeed, it did not make such an ex¬ 
tensive show ol its guardian protection. It/Wasj 
hardly, according to the extract, at one time. an-' 
thropy in relation to the race so such wept over, i 
under the sentiments of transcendental phtl-am- ‘ 
thropy. When the gentleman speaks with so 
much fervor of the black race as the equal of the . 
white, let him recollect that, accordingto the judg- j 
ment of history, they were once regarded some¬ 
thing like puppies when they were weaned, Afe.l 
their mothers and fathers could bedisposed of with, 
a profit ; for it is a notorious fact, that the slaves i 
of the north were much oftener sold to the south ij 
than emancipated. I conclude, by saying, that If 
wish philanthropy well, and, such as .! have heard, l 
good-by. 























V 















« 




















. 





» 













































































































% 



















































































































































. 























I 



























































































« 






















% 



























' 













































. 










































































































































































Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WDRI n I PfinPQ IU rm I cmnuc nnritpnuaviAu 


A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


























































































